This report is a synthesis of the papers and proceedings of a workshop on
democratization, convened at the National Science Foundation on December 8,
1993. The purpose of the workshop was to convoke a multidisciplinary group
of experts on processes of democratization in order to assess whether there
is a need for an extraordinary NSF initiative on democratization. As will be
clear from the pages that follow, the consensus of the group was that there
is a burning need for additional research support on processes of transition
to democracy, as well as on the consolidation and maintenance of democracy.
The workshop members strongly believe that socio-political changes in the
world have generated opportunities for research that is not only essential
to the strategic interests of the United States, but is central to the basic
science interests of the social scientific community.
This workshop would not have been possible without the enthusiastic
encouragement and support of Allan Kornberg, Director of Social, Behavioral
and Economic Research at NSF. Dr. Kornberg was largely responsible for
sensing the opportunity for a democratization initiative to contribute to
both the science and the strategic interests of the U.S. Frank Scioli,
Program Director, Political Science, was instrumental in contributing to
both the intellectual agenda of the workshop as well as its organizational
structure. The workshop also profited from discussions with virtually all of
the program directors with SBER. William Bainbridge, Program Director,
Sociology, in particular, contributed to this workshop report. Finally, we
are indebted to Cora B. Marrett, NSF Assistant Director for Social,
Behavioral and Economic Sciences, for her support and encouragement for the
workshop.
While it is likely that none of the workshop members endorses every
assertion and conclusion of this report, our report was produced as a
collaborative effort, based both on our discussions at the workshop and
working papers prepared by the workshop members. We are all grateful for the
opportunity to contribute to defining a research agenda within this most
terribly important area of social scientific inquiry.
-
James L. Gibson, Workshop Chair, Department of Political Science,
University of Houston, Houston. Texas 77004
Executive Summary
Around the world, nations are in turmoil. As some struggle against
enormous odds to create democratic political institutions and
market-oriented economies, others that have tasted the first fruits of
liberty are in grave danger of falling back into dictatorship and poverty.
In some of the most disquieting cases, ethnic and religious hostility and
civil war have brought societies to the brink of ruin. In others, however,
peoples long oppressed have joined the ranks of peaceful democracies and
are working toward political stability and economic prosperity. In all
cases, the political, social, and economic transformations currently under
way in the world provide a veritable social-scientific laboratory for
research on the dynamics and probable consequences of these global
transformations.
From a strategic perspective, if the United States and other mature
democracies are to navigate successfully the ocean of problems and
opportunities that lie ahead, we need complete and rigorous scientific
understandings of the factors that facilitate or impede democracy. The
social sciences are currently well positioned to generate the base of
reliable, systematic knowledge that would both contribute very markedly to
scientific understanding and also help guide policy makers charged with
the maintenance of our strategic interests. (See Appendix A for examples
of research projects recently funded by NSF that demonstrate the readiness
of the social sciences to do this important work.) Since a more democratic
world is also a more peaceful world, inquiry into the conditions
facilitating democracy is of utmost importance to U. S. national
interests.
From a scientific perspective, the intellectual gains to be had from
investigating the radical changes and powerful social forces unleashed in
so many nations could be enormous. It is difficult to learn the essential
conditions of democracy and prosperous and equitable markets by studying
exclusively well established, stable societies in which these have long
existed. Rather, by researching the struggles for freedom and stability in
states experiencing rapid political and economic change, we can better
understand which features of democratic political systems and flourishing
economies are essential and which are merely incidental. Many theories
have been proposed about the functions of various societal institutions,
the sources of social order or consensus, and the dynamics of
accommodation between and among competing groups. These theories can now
be tested in the laboratory provided by the former Soviet Union and other
metamorphosing nations.
This work must be started immediately, while the changes are still in
progress. If and when these societies complete their transition to stable
democracy, or if they fall back into authoritarianism, the unparalleled
opportunity to structure systematic studies to rigorously test hypotheses
in transitional societies that until recently were closed to free inquiry
will be lost. It is crucial that the social scientific community be
immediately provided the resources necessary for the massive research
effort required.
-
Therefore, the participants in this workshop unanimously agree that
scientific research is urgently and immediately needed on factors that
impede the expansion of freedom in authoritarian regimes, facilitate
democratization in transitional societies, threaten the continued
viability of unstable democracies, and maintain democracy in mature
states such as the United States. Five general areas of high priority
deserve intensive investigation (See Appendix B):
-
How do economic and political changes reinforce or conflict with one
another?
-
How can societies formerly dominated by raw power develop democratic rule
of law?
-
In what ways do global trends link nations into systems that may become
highly interdependent?
-
What are the feasible alternative routes to democracy and economic
prosperity in societies living under very different political, cultural,
and economic conditions?
-
What factors encourage the development and survival of democratic
political institutions, processes, and values?
We strongly urge the National Science Foundation to devote substantial
resources to social scientific research on these supremely important
questions.
Democratization Workshop Report
Under the sponsorship of the Division of Social, Behavioral and Economic
Research of the National Science Foundation, a group of 13 scholars met on
December 8, 1993, to consider the proper scientific response to the vast
political, economic, and social changes occurring in the former Soviet
Union and several other regions of the world. The group overwhelmingly and
enthusiastically agreed that research in this crucial area must be greatly
increased, and therefore that a special funding initiative should be
launched. This report describes the deliberations of the group and
outlines the scientific rationale for its conclusions.
Introduction: The Need for An Initiative on
Democratization
Both scientific and strategic concerns require the National Science
Foundation to target resources for the study of democratization processes
throughout the world.
The world is currently undergoing massive political change, much of which
is toward increasing democratic freedom and experimentation with less
command-oriented and more market-based economies. From the destruction of
the Berlin wall to the recent free elections South Africa, many areas of
the world are facing profound transformations of their political and
economic systems.
Consequently, much of the world has become a laboratory, allowing social
scientists to test hypotheses of great general significance about the
dynamics of political, legal, economic, cultural and social systems.
Because the social sciences have become mature disciplines so recently,
they have never had an opportunity like this for the advancement of
scientific theory. Within this context, aggressive but well-designed
research on the current massive, worldwide socio-political changes will
undoubtedly generate unparalleled gains in scientific knowledge. The
opportunity that currently exists is unlikely to be available for future
generations of social scientists. Thus, the need for research on
democratization is both urgent and immediate.
At the same time, the strategic interests of the United States have come
to mesh closely with our scientific interests. Successful development of
democratic governments in the former Soviet Union and other key parts of
the world would greatly enhance American security. America profits from
democracy abroad -- historically, democracies have been highly unlikely to
war on one another. In addition, the emergence of nascent free markets in
China, as well as in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere, opens
tremendous commercial opportunities for American business, especially
given American leadership in many areas of advanced technology. However,
continued progress toward fully democratic institutions and processes in
many countries -- including Russia and Ukraine -- is far from certain.
Research on the factors that can constrain or facilitate democracy can
help American leaders frame effective policies to deal with the crucial
challenges of the coming years. It is in this sense that the interests of
policy so nicely mesh with the interests of social scientists.
The Nature of Democracy
Democracy is a dynamic and multifaceted concept. Consequently, the several
fields of social science frequently employ somewhat different definitions
and focus on different aspects of the concept. This is entirely
appropriate, and indeed may be necessary. Workshop participants, who came
from a number of different disciplines, found it easy to communicate
without imposing a single conceptual definition on the group. In light of
the great variation in political structures throughout the world, we
believe that conceptual eclecticism is beneficial to the development of
good science.
However we define it, "democracy" is not a static end-state that polities
achieve, and, once achieved, maintain forevermore. Instead,
democratization is a dynamic process, involving numerous transformations.
Democratization should not be taken to imply inevitable, onward and upward
movement to a fully democratic system. Political transformations occur in
erratic bits; freedom is won, but it is also lost.
The workshop identified four stages in the democratization process, each
of which is worthy of considerable research effort and attention:
non-democratic regimes; transitional regimes; unstable democracies; and
stable democracies. For each, research is required on processes that bear
especially on the particular type of system, as outlined in the table
below.
TYPE OF POLITICAL SYSTEM:
|
RESEARCH NEEDED ON PROCESSES THAT:
|
Non-democratic regimes
|
Impede democratization
|
Transitional regimes
|
Facilitate democratization
|
Unstable democracies
|
Lead to breakdown of democracy
|
Stable democracies
|
Maintain democracy
|
The dramatic changes in Central and Eastern Europe highlight the
importance of democratization research, but it is essential to understand
democratization as a process having varied manifestations in different
parts of the world. Many countries in Africa are interesting, for
instance, for either failing to democratize, or for experiencing the
breakdown of democracy, or for undertaking a transition to democracy under
extraordinarily difficult circumstances. Many nations in South America and
East Asia confront similar challenges. The cultural and economic
variations across the developing world are so great that research is
needed on a global basis, as well as on individual societies of particular
scientific or policy interest.
Even within nations commonly thought of as democratic, there are important
opportunities to study the incomplete development of democratic
institutions and values. For example, many countries emphasize the
democratic norm that each person should have one vote, but have only weak
commitments to political tolerance of minorities. The rights of minorities
in democratic political systems should be an issue of great concern, and
similar problems of advanced democratic development are a valid focus for
research.
Comprehensive Research Initiative
Each of the sciences represented at the workshop has identified questions
of the greatest intellectual and substantive importance that could be
answered through timely research. The collapse of the Soviet Union has
stimulated theory development to an unprecedented level, and challenging
new hypotheses are being generated at a rapid rate. Therefore, it is
important that the democratization research agenda be kept open to some
extent, and that we be prepared to recognize creative new approaches as
they arise. However, it is worth outlining a preliminary research agenda,
both to illustrate the vast scientific potential of the work, and to
highlight key questions that deserve high priority for prompt and vigorous
research.
The workshop identified five research areas that deserve special emphasis:
the role of market transitions; the rule of law; the global system;
alternative routes to democracy; and democratic political institutions and
processes, and individual and group behavior. Each of these requires many
specific research projects and attention from several scientific
disciplines.
I. The Role of Market Transitions
During periods of political transformation, economic and political
processes interact with particular force, and some of the most serious
problems facing newly-emerging democracies are economic in origin. Some
theories hold that a market economy is beneficial or even essential to
democratization, although others do not. Thus a host of research questions
connected to the interplay of economic and political factors require
investigation, the following among them.
Is democracy good for economic growth, and vice versa? This is an
oft-stated relationships, but several hypotheses already in the literature
should be examined through more rigorous research designs. Some Russians
apparently believe their country needs an authoritarian government in
order to create a market economy. The thinking goes that democracy can be
developed later, after a market economy is in place. Similarly, the
Chinese government has chosen to emphasize economic change over political
change in its modernization efforts. A related hypothesis is that
countries become democratic as they become richer, and that a dynamic
relationship exists between economic performance and the political system.
Other hypotheses suggest that cultural factors influence both the
political and economic realms, perhaps in similar manner, although
cultural dimensions of economic transformation are at present very poorly
understood.
What economic institutions are needed to sustain a market economy, and in
what sequence do the institutions have to be created? Countries undergoing
political transformation and economic change must create whole new
institutional structures, including a financial system and a financial
regulatory framework, a tax system, international trade mechanisms, and a
social safety network.
-
Assuming that economic development (whether market-based or not) is
conducive to the creation of democracy, the problems of economic
transition and structural adjustment bear on democratization. Among these
problems, beyond the institutional issues just raised, are various issues
of economic policy, including:
-
1. the economics of stabilization, including its consequences for the
distribution of income between rich and poor;
-
2. privatization, optimal methods for achieving it, and its
distributional consequences;
-
3. trade liberalization and its relationship to price liberalization;
-
4. migration and its consequences, economic and political;
-
5. financial liberalization and the costs, benefits, and other effects of
integration into the world financial system;
-
6. social safety networks and the political-economy of anti-poverty
programs; and
-
7. industrial structure and policies pertinent to the establishment and
maintenance of a significant industrial base.
The interplay between economics and politics is far more than merely
institutional. The demands of the mass public, and organized popular
opposition to the government, may render politically impossible the
economic policies that some economists think are not only desirable but,
indeed, necessary. A case in point is the Russian political situation in
the last months of 1993, in which the Russian people seemed to repudiate
radical, market-based economic reform. Much more research must be focused
on the politics of economic reform and the means by which the political
process constrains economic policy. It is critical to learn who gains and
who loses from reform, especially under different strategies of change,
since different groups may win or lose under programs of industrial
privatization, currency stabilization, land reform, or the organization of
securities markets. Their capacities to act politically also vary. The
assertion that reforms are uniformly painful may be false. Some reform
programs can unintentionally strengthen anti-democratic forces, such as
those that increase unemployment while ignoring safety net issues. To
understand these policy-rich scientific problems, research attention
should be invested in analytical and empirical work on the consequences of
economic reform.
These problems also have important psychological dimensions. In many
Central and Eastern European countries, the free market has suddenly
opened new opportunities and new risks. For example, the question arises
how a population with a history of conservative decision-making views the
unaccustomed perils of reform. How does the willingness to tolerate risk
affect the stock market, investors, and savings in general? How does a
population inured to scarcity and unused to making individual choices
behave when suddenly a panoply of alternatives is available? The theory of
"social helplessness" suggests that many people in transitional regimes
fall into passivity, thereby suffering depression, confusion and poverty.
But the same conditions are exploited by enterprising individuals. What
are the implications of this contradictory situation for the emergence of
a successfully functioning free market and democratic political system? In
brief, the psychology of democratic and market transitions is a crucial
area of inquiry.
II. The Rule of Law
Creation and maintenance of democratic government requires the rule of law
and the complex nexus of norms and roles associated with it. Three general
legal topics are essential to any comprehensive understanding of
democratic processes: 1) legal arrangements that empower non-state
individuals and institutions; 2) legal conditions that protect the affairs
of individuals; and 3) the decentralization of legal authority among a
number of layers of government. The first two topics relate to the
fundamental question of how legal arrangements facilitate or impede
individual actions and, in turn, how individual and collective actions may
alter such arrangements. The third dimension of the rule of law is cast at
the level of social organization rather than at that of individuals,
though it has vast consequences for how individuals conduct their affairs.
1. The rule of law includes legal arrangements that empower non-state
actors (individuals, private corporations and the like) vis-a-vis state
institutions. Within this broad area, several specific research topics
stand out.
First, there is the issue of an independent judiciary. What are the
features of an independent judiciary, and how should we measure degrees of
judicial independence? Does the degree of independence affect the type of
democratic regime? Do states with low judicial autonomy operate democratic
systems that focus on the interests of the majority as compared with
minority rights? Judicial institutions can be, but are not always,
powerful forces in favor of greater democratization, but we understand
little about factors that encourage courts to act democratically.
Second, there is the role of litigation and other forms of disputing in
controlling the state and altering state decisions and policies.
Litigiousness is often view unfavorably in developed democracies, but in
fact it can be an important force for democratization in transitional
regimes. Moreover, to the extent that citizens are willing to entrust
state institutions with the management of their private conflicts,
systemic legitimacy may be emerging.
Third is the significance of property rights in the maintenance of
democracy. The founders of the American democracy firmly believed that
individual rights and property rights were inextricably intertwined (at
least in principle). In contrast, countries such as Sweden have operated
democratic systems while allowing the state to control a substantial
percentage of the wealth. Some scholars have argued that the
maldistribution of property ownership has impeded democratic regimes in
Latin America. This topic is of special importance currently as countries
of the former Soviet Union contemplate the re-privatization of portions of
their societies and consider complete revisions of legal codes concerning
property rights.
2. A crucial function of the rule of law is to allow individuals to
arrange their own affairs with a fair degree of predictability and freedom
of action. Some authoritarian legal regimes may provide predictability,
because their systems are designed to control individuals and thus
suppress many sources of unpredictability. But they do not facilitate free
individual action. Often, as has been found in research on labor courts in
the former East Germany, this predictability is merely consistent
enforcement upon individuals of the will of the state.
Two components are essential for understanding the rule of law at this
level. First, there is the issue of formal law, which theoretically
redefines all disputes in terms of a few formal legal concepts and
resolves disputes solely on these concepts. The validity of a contract,
for example, turns on questions of consideration, meeting of the minds,
and similar formal requirements, not on the specific attributes of the
litigants. Such a system creates the unique balance of predictability and
equal treatment that is the ideal of Western legal orders. A second
important component is adjective law: that is the set of evidentiary and
procedural rules that tell the legal system how to proceed. Considerable
work has been done on the perception of procedural justice, and this
research suggests that the legitimacy of democratic regimes depends in
part on perceptions individuals have that they have been treated fairly
and equitably in their legal encounters. Numerous other questions
concerning the origins of institutional legitimacy, however, remain
unanswered.
The legitimacy of legal institutions in turn affects compliance -- the
degree to which individuals arrange their affairs either to comply with or
to avoid legal mandates. It is believed by some that democratic systems
achieve higher levels of compliance with legal rules, due to the
legitimacy of law, but the issue is complex, as indicated by the work on
tax compliance. The democratization of the former Soviet Union and much of
Central and Eastern Europe will make possible a great improvement in our
understanding of general processes connecting democratic institutions with
regime legitimacy and individual compliance.
3. The issue of "layered law," a key form of jurisdictional
decentralization and division of labor in decision-making, concerns vital
aspects of the rule of law on the level of group organization rather than
individuals. With its federalism, the American legal system is
particularly complex because of the interaction between federal, state and
local law. In developing countries, very different kinds of legal layers
may exist, notably a coexistence of formal westernized codes with
traditional legal arrangements. In the past, many developing societies
have borrowed large parts of the legal regimes of other societies.
Sometimes this was done by the developing state itself, as when the Turks
and the Japanese borrowed Western legal codes near the beginning of this
century. At other times, it has been imposed by colonial powers. Today, a
substantial amount of imposition is occurring at the transnational level.
For instance, the European Union is slowly forcing member states to alter
legal arrangements to be compatible with EU directives. Perhaps more
important, Western economic institutions impose legal changes on all
societies that wish to participate in an integrated world economy.
The layering of law itself raises important questions of legitimacy and
compliance. How do institutions that transcend the nation state acquire
legitimacy, especially since many of these institutions suffer from a
"democracy deficit"? Short of coercive force, how can compliance be
assured? The growing importance of transnational institutions raises a
series of difficult questions for theories that have for so long been
focused on the nation-state.
The nature of legal layers is particularly important for the creation of
democratic regimes. To provide but one example, a serious impediment to
democratic arrangements in much of Eastern Europe and Africa is the
existence of ethnic and tribal cleavages that create large amounts of
distrust within society. Research is needed to learn what layered legal
arrangements might facilitate the emergence of democratic institutions and
processes. Moreover, can the universalism implied by the rule of law
overcome the particularism of tribalism? These are issues of tremendous
importance for many parts of the democratizing world.
III. The Global System
A scientific understanding of the global system of developed and
developing nations requires comparative analysis and the recognition that
some defining features of advanced industrial societies have particular
historical roots and may not be duplicated by other societies. In this
context, anthropologists can bring the distinctive strengths of their
discipline to democratization research. This is because: 1)
Anthropologists typically adopt a "decentered" cross-cultural approach
that does not necessarily take the Western democratic experience as
normative or exemplary; 2) Anthropologists are concerned with locating
data to answer large questions within the parochial understandings that
come from studying everyday life; 3) They have a special interest in and
experience with studying ethnic, sectarian and other ascriptive groups as
they form and operate on the society; and 4) Their long-standing
disciplinary practice is to contextualize political behavior and political
institutions within a larger framework of cultural beliefs.
The experience of developing nations with the construction and maintenance
of democratic institutions and procedures is neither peripheral to nor
derivative of the advanced industrial nations. Instead, this experience
may anticipate developments in industrial societies. The lived experience
of postcolonial nations has long included factors comparable to the global
economy, the transnational society, and the postmodern consciousness that
Europe and the United States now recognize pose new problems for
maintaining or building democracy. Therefore, the means by which nations
such as India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka have sought to create a democratic
state may be instructive across the globe.
Among the many general topics that can be illuminated by research in
developing nations, three stand out: cultural minority rights, opposition
movements, and world ideological trends.
1. A crucial research question is the extent to which the introduction of
electoral politics and other democratic reforms have given rise to
"cultural fundamentalism." That is the use of cultural (rather than
racial) arguments by a majority population to resist immigration and to
deny democratic rights to minority groups. Such culturalist arguments have
been used to rationalize violence against Turks in Germany, and some
echoes of them can be heard even in the United Kingdom and the United
States.
2. Opposition movements and public protest are essential aspects of
democracy, and it is crucial to learn how protest gets socially organized
and then legitimized in emergent democracies. Questions arise such as:
What types of movements have been most and least effective in bringing
about democratic transitions? How consequential for democratic transitions
have been social movements that are class specific versus multiclass,
restorative versus transformative, or political versus non-political? Do
women's movements have a special role in these processes? Does the
continuation of movements under newly emerged democracies help or impede
institutionalization of democracy and influence new regime politics? How
and why do macro-economic and political conditions influence the emergence
and effects of social movements? An extensive literature exists on social
movements and collective behavior that could inform studies of the
relationships linking them to democratic transitions.
3. Our century has seen global shifts in ideological currents. In the
1930s, Fascism was the ideology of choice for aspiring young intellectual
elites throughout much of the world, especially in Latin America,
Continental Western and Central Europe, and East Asia. Its only real rival
was Marxism. After World War II, Marxism became the dominant paradigm
among intellectuals throughout most of the world, especially in colonial
and former "Third World" countries, but also in much of Western Europe. In
the 1970s and 1980s this began to shift, and has now changed dramatically.
Various kinds of religious fundamentalism have gained the upper hand among
intellectuals in West, South and Southeast Asia, for instance. Is this a
trend for the future that will now spread to the former Communist
societies looking for new ideologies? What are the causes and consequences
of such massive ideological currents, and how do they affect the prospects
for democratization?
The question of how ideologies spread can now be addressed in light of the
development of new non-linear dynamic models. For example, psychologists
have developed a neural network model based on the "spin glass" approach
which is appropriate for the systematic study of the spread of ideas,
beliefs and ideologies. This computer model has been applied to the method
of social influence generally, and can now be applied to a range of
specific questions, such as the varying ways in which a democratic
ideology is diffused among populations characterized by different
demographics, economic interests, or historical backgrounds. Good
candidates for intensive empirical study include the influence of West
Germany on East Germany (and vice versa) and the spread of democratic
ideas within the Polish farm population.
IV. Alternative Routes to Democracy
It is clear that democracy is a process rather than a state, but a great
deal of new research is needed on the alternative pathways to democracy.
The prospects and nature of democratic transitions appear to be influenced
not only by the general form of the pre-democratic regime (Communist
versus bureaucratic-authoritarian) but also by specific characteristics of
those regimes. For example, if in the pre-democratic stage power was
concentrated and personalized, the political transformation may be
especially violent and short lived, and the resulting regime democratic
only in form, rather than substance.
Comparative in-depth studies that systematically consider the
characteristics of the polity, society, and culture in the period
preceding democratic transitions should provide a better understanding
both of the weight of historical forces and of how forces that impede
democratic processes might be countered. Longitudinal research on these
issues is, of course, imperative.
Research designs must take note of the distinctiveness of the various
stages of democratization. Factors that are important during periods of
initial transition to democracy may be less important during periods of
democratic consolidation. Economic failure, for instance, may be a
stimulus to democratization under non-democratic regimes, whereas it may
also be a major threat to the maintenance of democracy under established
democratic systems. Because it is inappropriate to assume that the factors
affecting democratization are similar at different stages of the process,
it is essential to conduct multiple tests of any major theory using data
from societies at different stages.
A related issue is the question of how reform varies when it is carried
out gradually or rapidly. Conventional wisdom holds that the prolonged
histories of political-economic development that brought the older
democracies to their current prosperous stability are unavailable luxuries
in new democracies that must undertake such development in relatively
short periods of time.
V. Democratic Political Institutions
Whether the conventional wisdom is supported by systematic study of
appropriate cases can help illuminate the pace, as well as the conditions,
under which transitions to democracy are likely to occur and be sustained.
Regarding conditions, one scholar has identified fully 27 explanatory
variables. Generally, however, the several theories categorize the
important factors in three groups: cultural, economic, and ethnic.
A. Political Culture. Nearly all agree that political culture is somehow
connected with democracy, and there are fairly coherent and
well-understood notions about the attitudinal and behavioral attributes
conducive to democratization. The general hypothesis is that democracy is
likely to flourish when a sizable segment of elites and the mass public
endorses majoritarianism as a basic decision rule for politics, supports
the rights of all groups to contest for political power, is willing to
tolerate the expression of nearly all ideas including potentially
dangerous ones, and is committed to the rule of law.
A legion of studies has investigated political culture from this
perspective, but a host of unanswered questions remains, including:
1. What is the relative influence of mass and elite political cultures?
Most agree that the attitudes, values, and actions of elites are crucial
to the development of democratic polities. There is some debate, however,
about the importance of the political culture of the mass public. It
cannot be utterly insignificant -- as we have so recently re-learned from
the experiences of the Russians -- but further research is necessary to
specify the relative contributions of masses and elites to
democratization. It is also important to consider how elites affect the
values of the mass public.
2. How rapidly can cultures change under the influence of various sources
of change? An important source of rapid cultural change is the importation
of ideas, so the study of worldwide diffusion processes and communication
linkages is of great importance. Further research on attitude and value
change at the individual level and among age cohorts is also necessary.
3. What is the nature of the causal connection between cultures and
institutions? Some argue that culture causes institutional performance;
others, that institutions cause cultural beliefs, and still others believe
that reciprocal processes are involved. Key issues for research are thus
whether there is a causal connection between institutional and cultural
democratization, and if so, the degree and direction of the relationship.
4. Political transformations are played out within a broader cultural
context, and subcultural pluralism has received a great deal of attention
in previous research. Some theorists have argued that the existence of
distinctive subcultures makes the development of democratic institutions
and processes more difficult. Most scholars recognize that the nefarious
effects of subcultural pluralism can be mitigated through such schemes as
consociational democracy, and few argue that cultural homogeneity is a
necessary condition for democracy. However, the fact that bargaining and
compromise are key elements of democracy causes many political scientists
to fear that the existence of strong and distinctive subcultural
minorities in a society will weigh heavily against democratization. This
could be avoided if alternative pathways and institutional schemes for
democratic development could be found. Thus, one of the most important
areas for future inquiry concerns the complex interactions between
nationalism, ethnic relations, and democratic development.
Other cultural issues are important as well, notably the connection
between religion and democratization. At the macro-level, why is there a
dearth of democracies in Islamic countries? The failure of democracy in
many Moslem countries cannot be entirely attributed to radical and
virulently anti-democratic fundamentalist forces (as those gaining power
in Egypt and Algeria), but may also be connected to belief and value
patterns encouraged and sustained by religious teachings. At the
microlevel, how do religious values shape democratic values such as
political tolerance and attitudes toward authority? Studies of the
interaction of political and religious values should shed light on how
democracies emerge and consolidate.
B. Economic Development and Success. Since the earliest systematic studies
of democratization, there has been great concern with the role of economic
factors. Few today believe that economics has nothing to do with
democratic transitions, but beyond this simple proposition, little
concordance can be found.
Theorists disagree about the connection between economics and politics in
part because so many discrete processes link the two sets of variables.
Socioeconomic development may contribute to democracy via several distinct
pathways, such as through: 1) changes in the social structure such as the
emergence of new social strata; 2) the emergence of a civil society; 3)
the development of a political culture that emphasizes inclusiveness,
participation, restraint, and accommodation; 4) the facilitation of a
government that permits significant economic and social autonomy.
These various pathways mix micro-level and macro-level processes. At the
micro-level, there is growing concern about the influence of economic
experiences, including self interest, on economic and political attitudes.
Especially important in periods of rapid economic and political change is
whether citizen attitudes toward the political system are a function of
retrospective or prospective economic attitudes. Indeed, while there is a
large body of theoretical literature connecting economic malaise with the
failure of democracy, empirical tests of this hypothesis at the
micro-level are virtually non-existent.
Methods of Inquiry
Finally, the workshop devoted considerable attention to research design
and methodology. This was true in part because many methodologies can
contribute to understanding the development and maintenance of democracy.
But it also stems from the fact that existing research on democratization
has suffered from underdeveloped research designs, such as using
cross-sectional designs that collect data at only one point in time to
assess dynamic hypotheses. This important deficiency in previous research
was largely due to inadequate funding for research in the field.
The most important methodological issue is the need to support
longitudinal research, collecting data at several points in time to
measure change. Democratization is a longitudinal, dynamic process, so the
fact that funding limitations frequently dictated cross-sectional design
severely compromised the ability of social scientists to assess many
processes of change and many causal interconnections among key variables.
The scope and rapidity of current political changes provide opportunities
for testing dynamic hypotheses that have never been available before.
The development of new measurement techniques and methods of statistical
analysis, of special relevance for research on democratization, is
particularly important. Rigorous measurement is at the heart of all
scientific inquiry, and research on democratization is no exception. Among
the vexing problems of comparative international research is the
difficulty of developing equivalent measures that are reliable and valid
in different cultures. Another difficulty is that the number of variables
under analysis often outnumbers the number of nations for which one can
obtain good data. Thus, a methodological component is a key part of a
democratization initiative.
Quantitative analysis comparing nation states is only one of many
approaches and a variety of scientific techniques appropriate for
different kinds of projects need to be developed and supported.
Conclusion
This brief survey of potential research topics and methodologies perforce
ignores many areas that need to be included in a comprehensive research
program. It should be clear that democratization is a broad and important
field for scientific study. It is crucial both to basic science and to the
strategic needs of the United States. Understanding democracy raises
fundamental scientific questions in all fields of social science. In
recent decades, social scientists have developed theoretical analyses and
techniques of empirical research that have prepared them to answer these
questions in ways that will be highly useful for our society.
The tremendous policy implications of this research program are obvious;
any knowledge that can improve the chances for democracy around the world
will greatly enhance the security and prosperity of American citizens. But
the scientific gains will also be great. In the natural laboratory offered
by a radically changing world, it will be possible to test key hypotheses
about the nature of large-scale social change, the functions of societal
institutions, and the very forces that bind a society together. This
research is of great urgency. Changes are occurring so rapidly researchers
must move quickly before opportunities are lost. In addition, American
leaders need prompt and authoritative advice on how to respond effectively
to the unparalleled events of our decade.
On the basis of the expertise developed in recent years by our scientific
disciplines, and in awareness of the massive changes currently in progress
around the world, we therefore most strongly urge the National Science
Foundation to invest substantial resources in research on democratization.
APPENDIX A:
Examples of Research on Democratization and Market Transition Recently
Supported by the Division of Social and Economic Sciences
-
93-11793: "Democratic Institutions: Which Work? Which Last?," PI: Adam
Przeworski, University of Chicago
-
The stability of democratic governments is not just a matter of economic,
social, and cultural conditions. Not all democracies are alike and the
different institutional arrangements within democratic governments affect
their ability to process conflicts, particularly under extremely adverse
conditions. This research asks which democratic institutions work and
last. By "work," the researcher means that the institutional arrangement
facilitates economic growth, material security, freedom from arbitrary
violence, and other conditions conducive to the full development of
citizens. By "last," the researcher means that the democratic
institutions effectively regulate major social conflicts, and that
established peaceful procedures are followed in making institutional and
policy changes.
-
89-21265: "A Cross-Cultural Study of Political Participation and Peace,"
PI: Bruce M. Russett, Carol R. Ember, and Melvin Ember, Yale University
-
Historically, democratic countries rarely fight wars with other
democratic countries. This research explores the reasons. It considers
the possibilities that the relationship is spurious, due to common traits
such as high income levels or participation in alliances. The research
then explores whether societies inviting broad participation in governing
are less likely to engage in warfare.
-
93-47319: "Public Values and the Transition to the Market Among
Post-Soviet Republics," PI: Donna Bahry, University of California - Davis
-
Nations with long histories of centrally controlled economies often face
resistance to free market reforms from portions of the public. This
project seeks to determine the extent, nature and causes of public
resistance, as expressed in public opinion surveys, to the transition to
a market economy in four republics of the former Soviet Union: Russia,
the Ukraine, Lithuania and Estonia.
-
93-10036: "Ethnic Mobilization, Political Process, and the Demise of the
USSR: An Event Analysis," PI: Mark Beissinger, University of Wisconsin -
Madison
-
This study examines how ethnic protest builds to undermine non-democratic
regimes. Data from the former Soviet Union on thousands of
demonstrations, strikes and other mass protests, as well as on leadership
turnover and government coercive actions in the former Soviet Union, are
examined to learn how protest grew and may have contributed to the demise
of the Soviet government.
-
92-12242: "The Transition from State Socialism to Capitalism in Russia,"
PI: Michael Burawoy, University of California - Berkeley
-
Case studies of the wood, coal, gas and military industries in the Komi
region will examine the hypothesis that the transition exaggerates
pathologies of the old economic order, leading toward a form of merchant
capitalism. If so, current policies of shock therapy (involving
stabilizing currency, price liberalization, tariff reduction, and
privatization) may not lead to modern capitalism but instead will create
obstacles to economic development.
-
92-13201/92-13905: "Legitimacy, Judicial Power, and the European Court of
Justice," PIs: Greg A. Caldeira, Ohio State University, and James L.
Gibson, University of Houston
-
This project investigates the connections between the legitimacy of a
legal institution and compliance with its decisions, focusing on the
European Court of Justice. It focuses in particular on change in mass
attitudes toward the Court, on how these attitudes are formed, evolve,
and ultimately affect popular willingness to accept Court decisions.
-
93-11335: "The Dynamics of Support for New Parties and National Party
Systems in Contemporary Democracies," PIs: Harold Clarke, University of
North Texas, and Allan Kornberg, Duke University
-
This study investigates the conditions under which politically
significant changes can occur in the structure and composition of party
systems in contemporary democracies. The dealignment or deterioration of
existing party systems coupled with the emergence of new issues, may lay
the groundwork for the creation of new parties and realigned party
systems. The study explores this thesis in contemporary Canadian politics
through the use of surveys of the electorate, party activists and local
officials.
-
93-08604: "Orientations Toward Law and Normative Ordering: Rights and
Duties (Collaboration with Researchers from Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary,
Spain, France, U.S.)," PI: Ellen S. Cohn, University of New Hampshire
-
This study asks to what extent belief in the "rule of law" is a necessary
ingredient in the process of democratization. The study compares citizen
perceptions of justice (the non-arbitrary use of power and equal
treatment under the law), attitudes toward individualism/collectivism,
rights consciousness, and other legal and political values, in six states
at different stages of democratization.
-
92-24475: "Economic Chaos and the Fragility of Democracy and Capitalism,"
PI: Raymond Duch, University of Houston
-
Many have argued that the economic chaos that accompanies political and
economic reforms seriously undermines the successful transition to
democracy and free markets in formerly authoritarian nations. Others have
found that there is little empirical evidence of this relationship. This
research investigates whether in fact there is a linkage between economic
performance and support for fledgling democratic and capitalist
institutions. The study examines democratic and free market transitions
in Eastern and Central Europe and in Latin America with available survey
data.
-
92-23326: "Social Change, Health and Demographic Behavior in Russia," PI:
Barbara Entwisle, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill 13
-
This grant, related to the Russian Longitudinal Monitoring Survey, will
ensure that a substantial body of data concerning the effects of
political and economic changes in Russia will be collected in accordance
with rigorous scientific methodology. It concerns Russian family
well-being and demographics during a period of vast and rapid social
transformation.
-
92-23163: "Regional Policy, Spatial Polarization and Inequality in China,
1982-1990," PI: C. Cindy Fan, University of California - Los Angeles
-
This research project will investigate the dynamics and implications of a
shift in Chinese regional development policies from the era of Mao Zedong
to that of Deng Xiaoping, that moved the economy closer to the open
international market at the cost of increased inequality between regions
of the country. The database will contain demographic and socio-economic
data for all counties in China in 1982 and 1990.
-
90-23565: "Democratization in the USSR: The Impact of Political Culture
on Processes of Political Change," PI: James L. Gibson and Raymond Duch,
University of Houston
-
This is a study of the impact of political attitudes on processes of
political change in the former USSR. The study focuses on attitudes
toward open political participation, tolerance of different opinions, and
popular control of authority, as well as beliefs about the social
implications of democratic politics.
-
90-23338: "High Level Decision-Making in the Contemporary Soviet
Economy," PI: Paul Gregory, University of Houston
-
This project analyzes decision-making by the Soviet economic bureaucracy
from the mid 1980s to the early 1990s. Data derived from a survey of more
than 1000 managers and Moscow bureaucrats were used to answer two main
questions: 1) How did the bureaucracy make decisions in the late Brezhnev
years? 2) How did bureaucrats and managers evaluate and react to the
changes of Perestroika thereafter?
-
93-21864: "Electoral Laws, Electoral List and Campaigning in the First
Non-Racial South African Election," PIs: Bernard Grofman, University of
California - Irvine, and Arend Lijphart, University of California - San
Diego
-
This research investigates the impact of the electoral system on the
first non-racial, universal suffrage election in South Africa in April
1994. The study will examine how the electoral mechanism of "list
proportional representation" affects the representation of racial and
ethnic groupings and how alternative electoral mechanisms might have
represented these groups. The study will test a number of specific
hypotheses regarding the influence of the electoral system on racial and
ethnic conflicts.
-
91-13967/91-13914: "Attributions of Responsibility and Wrongdoing in
Corporations: Japan, Russia and the United States," PIs: V. Lee Hamilton,
University of Maryland, and Joseph Sanders, University of Houston
-
This is a study of how individuals in three different cultures (Japan,
Russia and the United States) judge wrong-doing, ascribe responsibility
and assess blame. The focus is on how cultural variations in attitudes
toward law, justice and responsibility are related to the exercise of
state power in controlling citizen behavior.
-
91-22630: "Further International Comparisons of Product and Prices in the
Continuing Development of a World-Wide System of Real National Accounts,"
PIs: Alan Heston and Robert Summers, University of Pennsylvania
-
This project extends the national income accounts of about 150 countries
over a span of more than 35 years to make possible comparisons across
space as well as time. The data produced by this project have become the
definitive source for all interspatial and intertemporal studies of
economic growth. The economic data from this project underlie a large
number of research studies investigating the relationship between
development and democratic institutions.
-
92-12322: "Nationality and Politics: The Dismemberment of the Soviet
Union and the Reconstitution of a Commonwealth of Independent States,"
PIs: Jerry Hough, Duke University, and David Laitin, University of
Chicago
-
This study explores language use and assimilation as a basis for ethnic
and national identity and conflict in six states of the former Soviet
Union. The study aims not only to understand conflict in this crucial
area of the world but to improve our theories regarding the impact of
language differences on social and ethnic conflict and the establishment
and stability of governments spanning groups with different languages.
-
93-21089: "Restrictive Legislative Procedures, Party Bargaining and
Political Performance in Advanced Industrial Democracies," PI: John
Huber, University of Michigan
-
This study explores the impact of legislative procedures that restrict
the opportunities of representatives to shape final policy outcomes. A
particular focus is whether restrictive procedures affect the ability of
legislative institutions to adopt significant policy changes. This
research is especially relevant to new democracies designing procedures
so that their legislative institutions can be both effective in
determining policy and politically stable.
-
91-23396/91-23431: "Peasant Household Strategies and Socio-Economic
Differentiation: A Comparison of Transmigrants in South Sumatra and the
Moluccas," PIs: Thomas Leinbach, University of Kentucky, and Jon Goss,
University of Hawaii
-
Indonesia, the fourth most populous nation with a political economy that
challenges theories of democratization, has established a program to
recruit poor, landless households in Java and Bali to move to new
settlements on outer islands where they receive land, allowances and
agricultural training. Little is known about the impact of such
resettlement schemes, and this project will employ surveys, in-depth
interviews, and focus groups to examine the process of socio-economic
differentiation at the regional and household level in selected areas
involved in this program.
-
91-13863/91-13752: "The Effects of Cultural Context and Migration on
Perceptions of Law and Justice," PIs: E. Allan Lind, American Bar
Foundation, and Tom Tyler, University of California - Berkeley
-
The study examines attitudes in three countries that have been the target
of substantial immigration (Hong Kong, Germany and the United States) to
determine how values, beliefs and preferences relating to law and justice
interact and change as people move from one culture to another. The
particular focus is on forms of conflict resolution across cultures when
people from different cultures confront each other as a result of
immigration.
-
92-13209: "Islamic Modernism, Liberal Nationalism and Fundamentalism in
the Middle East," PI: Mansoor Moaddel, Eastern Michigan University
-
This study analyzes data about three social movements in Egypt, Iran,
India, Pakistan and Syria to identify their causes and the connections
linking them to large-scale socio-economic and political changes. It will
enhance scientific understanding of Islamic movements, and assess their
impact on the prospects for democratic institutions and processes in
Middle Eastern societies.
-
93-09651: "The Emergence of a Market Society: Between Redistribution and
Markets in China," PI: Victor Nee, Cornell University
-
This project will test theories of market transitions from state
socialism, using data from a national social survey conducted in rural
China. It will extend market transition theory to empirical challenges
posed by the growth of rural industry, regional variation in the shift to
markets, and increasing income inequality, chiefly by examining the
institutional framework in which the market is embedded.
-
92-24308: "Ethnic, Social and Political Attitudes Among Youth in
Post-Soviet Societies," PI: John P. Robinson, University of Maryland,
College Park
-
A survey of youth in ten former republics of the Soviet Union will employ
a probability sample frame of schools to assess: strength of group
identities, attitudes toward other nationalities, policy preferences on
nationality issues, general political attitudes and attitudes toward the
commonwealth.
-
91-22229: "Expectations, the Macro Economy, and Asset Markets," PI:
Robert Shiller, National Bureau of Economic Research
-
This project studies the political and economic transition problems in
Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, in order to test the
hypothesis that people who have lived their lives under a communist
system will be unprepared to accept price changes or to allow an unequal
distribution of income.
-
92-23359/92-23571: "Organizational Adaptation and Survival During Reform:
A Panel Study of Bulgarian Enterprises," PIs: Kenneth I. Spenner, Duke
University, and Derek Jones, Hamilton College
-
Development of market-oriented economies in societies undergoing
democratization will require privatization of government-run factories, a
painful and uncertain process. This panel study of manufacturing
enterprises in Bulgaria examines factors associated with success and
failure over a four-year time span, testing theories derived from both
sociology and economics.
-
93-10395: "Social Stratification in Eastern Europe after 1989: Data
Preparation and Analysis," PI: Ivan Szelenyi, University of California -
Los Angeles
-
A set of large-scale, multi-language comparative surveys will examine the
effect of the transformation away from Communism in Bulgaria, the Czech
Republic, Hungary, Poland, Russia, and Slovakia. In each country, surveys
of the general population and of elites will test theories about
socio-economic mobility including recruitment to the elite.
-
92-13310: "Unemployment Dynamics in Czechoslovakia During the
Transition," PI: Katherine Terrell, University of Pittsburgh
-
This study will analyze the unemployment dynamics involved in the
transition from a centrally planned to a market economy. As employment
rises rapidly, as it does in all transforming economies, the issues of
what determines unemployment and how to best mitigate it are of critical
importance to maintaining political stability. The situation in
Czechoslovakia will be analyzed to shed light on these issues. A major
benefit of this project is the collection and analysis of informative
data sets related to the transition process in the former Soviet Union.
APPENDIX B:
Research Problems Pertaining to Democratization and Transition to
Market-Oriented Economies
-
General Questions:
-
* What factors impede democratization in non-democratic regimes?
-
* What developments facilitate democratization in transitional regimes?
-
* What conditions lead to breakdown of democracy in unstable democracies?
-
* What institutions and forces maintain democracy and protect minority
rights in stable democracies?
-
Questions on the Role of Market Transitions:
-
* How do economic and political changes reinforce or conflict with one
another?
-
* Is a market economy essential to democratization, or can political
freedom arise in a centrally planned economy?
-
* Is democracy good for economic growth, and vice versa?
-
* Does a country like Russia need an authoritarian government in order to
create a market economy?
-
* Do countries become more democratic as they become richer?
-
* How important for the development of democracy is the growth of a
bourgeoisie, a large middle class, or in general a stratification order
that is not polarized between rich and poor?
-
* What economic institutions (such as a financial regulatory framework
and international trade mechanisms) are needed to sustain a market
economy, and in what sequence must the institutions be created?
-
* What are the optimal methods for privatizing government-run
enterprises?
-
* What are the consequences of economic stabilization and privatization
for the distribution of income between rich and poor?
-
* What is the relationship between trade liberalization and price
liberalization?
-
* How do democratization and market transition affect migration, but
internationally and within a nation?
-
* What are the political and economic effects of the massive migration
rates that may be unleashed by democratization and market liberalization?
-
* What are the costs, benefits, and other effects of a nation's
integration into the world financial system?
-
* What are the political and economic dynamics of anti-poverty programs
and social safety nets in societies moving away from centralized
government control?
-
* Which economic policies are pertinent to the establishment and
maintenance of a significant industrial base?
-
* Under what conditions do the demands of the mass public and organized
popular opposition render politically impossible the economic policies
that economists think are necessary?
-
* Who gains and who loses from economic reform, under different
strategies of change?
-
* How does a population, psychologically adapted to very conservative
decision-making, view the hazards of relatively free markets, and under
what conditions can their views change?
-
* Is there a conflict between privatization and the communitarian values
that dominate the political culture of many democratizing states, and to
what extent is such a conflict a barrier to the liberalization of
markets?
-
* How does the willingness to tolerate risk affect the stock market,
investors, and savings in general?
-
* How does a population inured to scarcity and unused to making
individual choices behave when suddenly many alternatives are available?
-
Questions on the Rule of Law:
-
* How can societies formerly dominated by arbitrary power develop a
democratic rule of law?
-
* What are the critical features of an independent judiciary across
cultures, and how should we measure degrees of judicial independence?
-
* To what extent does the degree of judicial independence affect the type
of democratic regime?
-
* Is low judicial autonomy inconsistent with protection of ethnic,
religious and cultural minorities?
-
* To what extent does litigation and other forms of disputing enhance or
hinder stability in democracies?
-
* What effect does access to courts and other mechanisms for resolving
disputes have on citizens' control of state policy?
-
* How significant are property rights in the maintenance of democracy?
-
* Under what social conditions can the rule of law contribute to
political and economic stability by enhancing the capacity of individuals
to arrange their own affairs with a fair degree of predictability and
freedom of action?
-
* What are the conditions that foster or retard the willingness of the
military to respect human rights and obey the nation's laws?
-
* How can formal law resolve disputes while preserving non-arbitrary and
equal treatment of citizens?
-
* How important for the spread of democratic institutions is the
diffusion and adoption of increasingly uniform human rights guarantees
and constitutional provisions in countries around the world?
-
* What features of a legal system and what experiences with legal
institutions give individuals the perception that they have been treated
fairly and equitably in their legal encounters?
-
* How does perception of the legitimacy of legal institutions affect
compliance with legal mandates?
-
* Does the perception of the legitimacy of legal institutions stem more
from early political education or from specific experiences with legal
institutions?
-
* In what ways can "layered law" manage ethnic divisions and group
conflicts within a society?
-
* What is the role of imported law relative to indigenous law in
developing countries?
-
Questions on the Global System:
-
* In what ways do global trends link nations into systems that may become
highly interdependent?
-
* To what extent is the Western democratic experience the result of
unique historical circumstances, rather than being the appropriate guide
for all other societies?
-
* In what ways are political behavior and institutions shaped by
political values or the larger framework of cultural beliefs?
-
* What does the lived experience of postcolonial nations tell us about
the global economy, the transnational society, and the postmodern world?
-
* To what extent have the introduction of electoral politics and other
democratic reforms given rise to "cultural fundamentalism?"
-
* Under what circumstances does democratization endanger the rights of
cultural minorities?
-
* How does public protest become socially organized and then legitimized
in emergent democracies?
-
* What types of social and political movements have been most and least
effective in bringing about democratic transitions?
-
* How consequential for democratic transitions have been social movements
that are class specific versus multiclass; restorative versus
transformative; or political versus non-political?
-
* What special role do women's movements have in processes of political
and economic transformation?
-
* Does the continuation of social and political movements under
newly-emerged democracies help or impede institutionalization of
democracy and influence new regime politics?
-
* How and why do macro-economic and political conditions influence the
emergence and effects of social movements?
-
* Is the replacement of political extremism by religious fundamentalism a
trend for the future that will now spread to the former Communist
societies looking for new ideologies?
-
* What processes of social and cultural diffusion enable ideologies to
spread from one society to others?
-
* What is the impact of the global communications revolution in spreading
attitudes favorable (or hostile) to democratization to new parts of the
world?
-
* What is the role of international non-governmental organizations in
influencing the adoption of democratic institutions within various
countries?
-
Questions on Alternative Routes to Democracy:
-
* What are the feasible alternative routes to democracy and prosperity in
societies living under very different political, cultural, and economic
conditions?
-
* How are the prospects and character of democratic transitions
influenced by specific features of pre-democratic regimes?
-
* If power was concentrated and personalized in a society before
democratization, will the political transformation be especially violent
and short lived?
-
* What conditions predispose a society to develop a political system that
has only the form of democracy without its substance?
-
* What conditions tend to stabilize the process of political change?
-
* How does the impact of causal factors vary across the stages of
democratization in a society?
-
* Is economic failure a stimulus to democratization under non-democratic
regimes, but a major threat to the maintenance of democracy under
established democratic systems?
-
* How do the results of reform vary if it is carried out gradually or
rapidly?
-
Questions on Democratic Political Institutions:
-
* What factors encourage the development and survival of democratic
political institutions, processes and values?
-
* What is the relative influence of mass and elite political cultures on
the transition to and maintenance of democratic political systems and
market-oriented economies?
-
* How do elites affect the values of the mass public?
-
* How rapidly can cultures change under the influence of various sources
of change?
-
* What is the nature of the causal connection between democratization of
cultures and of institutions?
-
* To what extent does the existence of distinctive subcultures within a
society make the development of democratic institutions and processes
more difficult?
-
* What are the conditions that foster or inhibit the development of
ethnic nationalism and other forms of intolerance of other groups?
-
* What is the relationship between the proliferation of voluntary
associations or other forms of non-governmental social involvements and
the formation and maintenance of democratic institutions?
-
* What are the connections between religion and democratization?
-
* Why is there a dearth of democracies in Islamic countries?
-
* How do religious values shape democratic values such as political
tolerance and attitudes toward authority?
-
* What are the influences that foster or retard the development of
popular attitudes of tolerance for those with other values or from
different social backgrounds?
-
* What is the role of formal education in fostering democracy, and can
some forms of education foster democracy while others obstruct it?
-
* What are the conditions that foster or retard the subordination of the
military to civilian rule?
-
* By what mechanisms does socioeconomic development contribute to
democracy?
-
* What is the impact of dependence upon foreign trade, foreign aid,
foreign investment, and foreign loans on the development of
democratization?
-
* How do economic experiences, including self-interest, shape economic
and political attitudes?
-
* During periods of rapid economic and political change, are citizen
attitudes toward the political system a function of retrospective or
prospective economic attitudes?
-
* What evidence can really test the widespread theoriesconnecting
economic malaise with the failure of democracy?
Go to the NSF Political Science
Program Go to the NSF Law and Social
Science Program